User talk:Lallint/Archive 1

This archive contains all messages from the time right before, and during my indefinite block.

Hello, Lallint! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Timeline of Watertown, New York

The article Timeline of Watertown, New York has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Overkill for this smallish town. The main elements are included in the "history" section of the Watertown article, the remainder is trivia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

File:CamberwellHigh.svg

Just out of curiosity, I noticed you put a file PROD on your own image. I'm just double-checking that this was intentional, and if so I will proceed with deleting it per WP:G7. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was intentional, I took the original logo and turned it into an svg because this was before they told you specifically not to do that Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 12:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia, and articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use your sandbox instead, where you are given a certain degree of freedom in what you write. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Somebody had suggested the edit be made in the talk page in early 2021 but nobody ever said anything so I figured I might as well put it there, it wasn't in bad faith though I just thought there should be at least one article on Wikipedia with humor in it Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Whyyyyyyy after a block and thorough discussion for doing similar things? And was the edit summary of Special:Diff/1075443651 really necessary?

The thing is, you either genuinely thought this was completely unproblematic (which then is a problem by itself), or you've been intentionally disruptive.

I have one single simple wish: Please stop mixing good-faith edits and intentional disruption on the same platform. Throw the garbage at Fandom or something. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer: The last sentence is not a serious suggestion, and I'll now de-watchlist this page. Its watchlist notifications haven't benefited either of us. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little bit too tired to think of a good message that can accurately and professionally summarize my thoughts without going into intricate detail like I'm writing a FA or mailing a letter to the president of the united states so I'll just say this:

I did think it was problematic but I figured that it would be fun to bring back the less professional and less serious Wikipedia of 2008 when people could ask how the robbers in home alone didn't die after having an iron dropped on them (true story) in just a single page, but I guess I wasn't thinking right because sometimes im smart and sometimes im like a second grader trying to understand Pre-Economics, though there is one bit of humor that is still in an article that I find funny is the way I worded Historic people in Watertowns page. I'm glad that you are not too professional though and thanks for that.Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 01:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Ramspeck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrat. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Lallint! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 01:32, Monday, March 7, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

What were you thinking?

Why are you welcoming an editor who was blocked in 2007 who's only edit was to post this atrocious comment at AN? Giving the history of this account and your continued inexplicable behaviour, I'm now convinced you're either openly trolling or aren't capable of editing productively in a consistent manner.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened but I reverted it, I don't know how you can accidentally welcome a user but I clearly somehow managed to do it Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption either through outright trolling or a lack of competence regarding what is expected when editing an open and collaborative project. Given your oh-so-humerous userbox, its clear that you really think this is a platform for your personal amusement. If you can convince an admin otherwise, you can be unblocked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I endorse this block, based on previous discussions and the mentioned userbox. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I seriously didn't mean to do that, I'm sorry about it and I don't want it to be taken as I endorse his actions Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And I'm not saying that as some stupid way to taunt you or something I really am sorry if it seemed like I supported the crappy things that he said Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Lallint it would probably be best if you take a break from Wikipedia for a few weeks and think about what you want to do here on Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

While humor isn't always inappropriate here on Wikipedia, too much of it is. In the past (when I was very new to editing) I often made inappropriate, joke comments at WP:ANI, which I was rightfully scolded for. I eventually just decided to unwatch ANI partially because it's a drama board, and partly so I wouldn't be tempted to continue to make joke comments. Nowadays I will occasionally make joke comments, however only when it's appropriate (and often appended with the template {{jokes}} Which is an inline template for marking the preceding comment as a joike), however I mainly focus on making constructive, helpful edits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ponyo: You forgot to block my second account, User:Lallint2 Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 18:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Done -- TNT (talk • she/her) 18:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks👍 Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If you had intended to use that account to evade your block that would've lowered the chances of you getting unblocked. Just so you know. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't so that's good Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lallint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am aware that the edits that I made were not allowed on Wikipedia and would like to be able to resume constructive and helpful edits. I did not intend for disruptive editing but looking back it is obvious that it was and I know now what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You say that you knew the edits you made were not allowed but also that you didn't intend to edit disruptively; both of these statements cannot be true at the same time. Either you knew the edits were inappropriate and did them anyway, or you didn't know and were unknowingly disruptive. Either way, I concur with the comment below that you need to mature more as a person and editor before requesting unblock again. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What I meant was I was unaware at the time of doing the edits that they were disruptive but looking back I realize that it was Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 10:53 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Lallint, this is your second block, and you couldn't make it through your first one-week block without violating its spirit. You were blocked again for clearly not getting the reasoning behind your original block. Now you are asking to be unblocked 5 days into your second block? You clearly are capable of making constructive contributions, but any of this other crap negates any value those contributions have. I have been quietly observing your history since our first interaction, and I just think you currently lack the necessary maturity to contribute here. That's not going to come in 5 days. IMHO, you need to let your block stand for months at minimum, go do some other stuff for a while, and perhaps come back to Wikipedia in the future. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you link our first interaction? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know, I have resumed activity on Simplewiki and have been making good contributions there.--Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Our first interaction was at User_talk:Lallint/Old#Non-admin_closure. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lallint (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After around fifty days I have re-thought how I would like to approach this site, as more of as being a contributor to a project than a hobby. I was wrong to have been making inappropriate comments, and even going so far to create a redirect titled "Rfd me if u gay". That was ridiculous, and I promise that things like that are never going to happen again. I also have an alternative account, Lallint2, that I was aware of and did not use it for sockpuppetry or vandalism.--Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 20:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As unblocking, even just partially, had been attempted before, followed by a re-block, an automatic unblock, and yet another block, accepting this unblock request while the blocking administrator is still reasonably concerned is not an option. I recommend waiting at least three months before creating a new unblock request, and I recommend not using this talk page in the meantime, to create a clear, visible distance between now and the end of the waiting period. In the meantime, editing other wikis is probably a good idea and encouraged (such as by WP:SO and WP:GAB at WP:SOCKBLOCK, both referring to sockpuppetry but providing generally useful advice). This decline is not meant to be a discouragement from editing in general. It is meant to minimize the risk of disruption in a project that has already had enough of it, and that has already provided three failed opportunities to edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The discussion has run cold, @ToBeFree: was very active about my good and bad actions so I think he might be able to help discuss this -Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What were your plans for the account Xoiwiki ? SQL^{Query Me!} 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I created the account while with my cousin who wanted to make edits to Wikipedia after he saw that I was a big contributor (in his eyes), but he only used it once or twice to revert vandalism then never used it again--Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This was during my seven day block in February Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious, what pages are you planning on editing? Will you continue to make edits like these and create pages like User:Lallint/templates/Userboxes/CBT, Category:Ironic Afds, Template:HORRIBLEPAGES, Wikipedia:Horrible articles etc.? Moneytrees^Talk🏝️ 21:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am active on Simplewiki and you can check my contributions there, I will mostly do contributions similar to those Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Like modifying others' talk page comments? I randomly clicked five diffs to get an overview; may have been bad luck. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I admit that may not have been a good move, but if you see the context behind it it might make some sense, I guess I was lazy and went for the replace all button so that it could modify the other quote as well. Thank you for responding though! Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, Little Trees on simplewiki is my current magnum opis, those are the changes that I was referring to Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying it's an argument for not unblocking you, but I had a feeling it should be pointed out to prevent a "everything Lallint did on simplewiki was perfectly fine" impression. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Horrible articles and the userbox were both pages that I defend and believe should have been kept. The horrible articles thing was a modification of bad articles and was very clearly a good contribution. The userbox was in my userspace and was a private thing that nobody else would see. I think neither of them should have been deleted. I know that previously I tried not to defend my point of view, but It's been bugging me a lot lately. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Horrible Articles and Ironic Afds both were attempts at humor, Horrible Articles was stolen by somebody with no trace of my edits to it and is now an April Fools article (despite having been written in February), so it was clearly a good contribution to the site Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Stuff like that is only ok during April Fools' day and it must be kept within a subpage of that respective year's april fools' page (And even then some editors don't like that April Fools pranks are done on Wikipedia even when they are kept out of mainspace). Even then, if that's all you want to do then you can go elsewhere (not saying that's true however).. I myself have been trying to focus more on mainspace article edits rather than only reverting vandalism. I just need to find an article that I can try and improve. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I know multiple articles that I would like to, and easily could, improve. Before my block I worked extensively on improving Watertown, New York and I'm looking to get it to a good article, and eventually get it to a good topic. Little Trees, Stella, Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library, and Robots are a few articles related to Watertown that I'd like to get to at least a B. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have taken much inspiration from Ɱ Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I had placed the first block. Short summary: The first block was clearly needed, reducing it to a partial block without discussion was a(n understandable) mistake that quickly backfired and has been corrected; the indefinite block seems to have been necessary as well. To not let a block reduction backfire under the surprised eyes of the blocking administrator again, Ponyo's opinion is needed here. It has been a while. If Ponyo is fine with trying again, I'm fine with that too. If Ponyo opposes unblocking, so do I. I'd think of unblock conditions, but a condition of "don't do silly things again" can't be formally logged, so I'd say the decision is about performing either a full unblock or none at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I still have significant concerns regarding Lallint's ability to edit productively consistently. Even within this appeal section there are red flags (e.g. the creation of another account while blocked, this incorrect "ends justify the means" comment). I don't support an unblock at this time because my instincts are telling me Lallint doesn't know where to draw the line when it comes to productive edits and personal lulz, but if any admin wants to extend some rope then I won't make a fuss.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The creation of another account was during my other 7 day block in February, but I promise if an administrator extends some rope that I will not hang myself. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of the time frame, which is does not allay my concerns at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your words, fingers crossed! Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have been waiting for so long to finally be able to edit Watertown, New York again, some messages on the talk page were talking to me and they must have thought I was ignoring them! Can't wait to finally accomplish what I started here Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, one thing. In my opinion, requiring a waiting period before accepting "I have changed"-type unblock requests is not solely justified by the probability of people changing. It is additionally justified, to a non-negligible degree, by turning around the time investment balance: The longer we wait before unblocking a user, automatically or manually, the higher the cost of damaging the encyclopedia becomes for the unblocked user. Having to wait months instead of days before getting a new chance to disrupt reduces the attractiveness of disruption and the amount of caution invested into after-unblock edits. So if this one is accepted and fails, I propose a year as the next waiting duration. With this in mind, I'd be willing to take that chance, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I think your decline is well-worded and full of sage advice that will likely lead Lallint towards a successful future appeal if followed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Does it have to be three months? I think one month seems reasonable, but summer vacation is in exactly three months, so I suppose that does lead to two things to look forward to. When I saw my first block my heart dropped, but here I think you've worded it well and in a respectful and respectable way that makes it obvious that you are aware that I am doing these in good faith. I'm just happy to finally have some closure after almost two weeks of suspense. Thank you for your words anyway, though! Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Is it possible to suggest or ask for edits to be done? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be asking for edits to be made while blocked, and some administrators may remove your talk page access if you do so repeatedly in a way not allowed by policy. WP:PROXYING describes how [e]ditors ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Therefore, although I am not ToBeFree, I think they will also say don't ask for / suggest edits while you are blocked. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What Dreamy Jazz said. Additionally, my reasoning for practically already having said so was "to create a clear, visible distance between now and the end of the waiting period". That's not specific about edit requests, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How long does the block have to be? The block has been ongoing for almost two months. I really won't edit disruptively or for my own personal laughs, I will edit in the same manner as on simplewiki. If I make a mistake, let me know, and if I make a whole bunch of mistakes, block me for longer. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The block will be as long as it needs to be. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the "condition" ToBeFree previously referenced could be a specific namespace block. Perhaps I could only write in Draft namespaces? Perhaps every edit I make would automatically be set to a pending change that has to be manually reviewed? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your 2nd idea is possible. Your first one is up to the admins to decide. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As has been mentioned you are recommended to wait 3 months from about now to requesting an unblock. While you don't technically have to wait 3 months, this is essentially a minimum because I don't think any admin would accept an unblock request until this point. This is because several admins have suggested or supported the suggestion that you wait around this long. While you say that you won't edit disruptively or for my own personal laughs, we can only take your word for it. While I don't doubt you are being sincere, we cannot be sure everyone is being truthful when they say they won't or will do something in the future.

With regards to unblock conditions these are probably in your case going to be decided at the time you request an unblock. While some plans may be laid down, editing constructively at simplewiki would determine what, if any, unblock conditions are used. For example, if you are very constructive at simplewiki there may not be the need for unblock conditions. While unconstructive edits at simplewiki might mean more unblock conditions or even no unblock.

Therefore, I would suggest focusing editing on simplewiki. Although you are still welcome to ask questions about your block, as was said by ToBeFree the idea is to create a clear, visible distance between now and the end of the waiting period. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you add a link to the commons category for the Salmon Run Mall on the page? I took a bunch of photos of the mall and created a commons category for it because the talk page is marked as needing an image, but I can't add an image or add an image to the article because of my block. Could you add either an image, or a link to the commons category, or would that fall under the "not okay" category in the "no proxying" rule? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This image is a quality image, so maybe that could be the image? Or maybe it could be in it's own separate gallery or section? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 23:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Lallint! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 17:35, Saturday, March 19, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Talkpage access revoked

You were told above that if you requested edits to articles, that would violate WP:PROXYING and lead to a revocation of talkpage access.

You then immediately requested edits to articles.

I'll be honest, Lallint, I think you've been extended an inordinate amount of AGF here. Every single time an admin has told you not to do something, you have then tried to see how far you could push things. Over and over again. With no real acceptance of that fact the many times you've been called on it. I don't think you're incompetent. I don't think you're naïve. I think this is a deliberate pattern of trolling.

I've revoked your talkpage access. Please see WP:UTRS for your remaining options. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with and support this action. I strongly suggest not using UTRS until 3 months has passed. Furthermore, I also strongly suggest not asking for edits to be made on your behalf on this Wikipedia unless your block here is removed. Doing either is only going to harm future unblock requests. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

To note I did make a comment, made just before removal of TPA, that suggested not asking for edits to be made. However this is moot as TPA is gone and on reflection I don't see the last comment they made as question of "can I do this" but instead can someone do this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jeffrey Smith (mayor)

Hello, Lallint. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jeffrey Smith (mayor), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #61572

is closed. User should wait until after November 8th, 2022 to request unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jeffrey Smith (mayor)

Hello, Lallint. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jeffrey Smith".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"Minor Attracted Person" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Minor Attracted Person and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 2#Minor Attracted Person until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources

Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Parent articles should use primary sources during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"All disney films" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect All disney films and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6#All disney films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #65170

declined. For the record, no block evasion found. The decline was on the merits of the request. -- Yamla (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #65301

is closed. Noting Yamla's decline on Nov. 5, 2022 at UTRS appeal #65170 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #75002

restored TPA per Ponyo and Tamzin -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Community appeal or regular? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a community appeal makes the most sense. There was a deliberate abuse of the community's trust, and a lot of users extended a lot of AGF and were punished for that. Personally, I'm inclined to reward Lallint's honesty in that regard with some rope, but I think that's a decision the community should make together. Plus it would allow for some time for editors to look at their edits on Simple. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I 100% understand if people are mad at me, I took advantage of their kindness and abused it. I hope you can build trust of me again! Lallint 21:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks. @Lallint: Looks like you unblock request would best be carried to WP:AN for the Community to decide. Please read the WP:GAB for guidance. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Will another user post it at AN? Lallint 21:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, once a member of the unblock review sees it, they will see to carry it to WP:AN -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'm very glad to be back on enwiki, even if its just on my talk page! Lallint 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks, how long does it usually take for a user to bring it to AN? Lallint 20:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the appeal you want copied to AN? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin #75002 Lallint 21:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Might I suggest you write something more tailor-made for a community audience? Perhaps incorporating some of the contrition from utrs:74379 as well. An unequivocal apology is crucial to an unblock appeal after this level of misconduct. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Would I write it in the comments or submit another appeal? Lallint 23:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just write out right here what you would like the appeal to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a couple weeks, @Tamzin, I haven't gotten to it until now.

I have been blocked on Enwiki for a year and a half now. I've taken a step back from Wikipedia in the past few months to re-think my previous edits and behavior. For a while after my block I edited on simplewiki, and created a GA from a stub here, which, if I am unblocked, I will expand to about the size it is on enwiki. I was blocked on Enwiki after a year of disruptive edits hidden between genuine contributions, and the edit that caused my indefinite block was when I welcomed a user with a "cookie" template, who was blocked in 2007 for claiming responsibility for the disappearance of a girl who had gone missing and that they had disposed of the body. After my block for that, I claimed that it was an accident but it really wasn't. I made that edit intentionally because I thought it was funny, completely ignorant to how completely childish and disrespectful it was. I had a history of disruptive behavior, and I was also blocked two months prior for 7 days. After a day I requested an unblock, completely missing the point of the block. Then I requested for a partial unblock to participate in an Afd, and after another editor kindly let me, I took advantage of their good faith and stored my edits in a sandbox page. Then, in the talk page, I went on a completely unrelated tangent about my aspergers and how cool my city is. At the time, I knew the editors were assuming good faith, so I chose to be as immature as possible. I'm sorry to all the editors that I've taken advantage of, and I hope that you guys can rebuild your trust in me. Thank you all and I hope you consider my rquest.

I hope that is okay! If there are any problems with my request let me know. Thank you! Lallint 20:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hello,

I have just closed the community's unblock review, which unanimously backed unblocking you. I'd suggest reading the whole thing (if you haven't already), but will make the following highlights:

1. Your appeal was viewed as honest and high quality - including aspects such as your work on simple-english wikipedia and acceptance of the issues at hand.
2. There are no partial restrictions in play from the discussion, and I'm not aware of any that predate your block.
3. There was also a very clear consensus that you've burnt your AGF protection and that the next indefinite block is likely your last. The upshot of that is a need to not merely behave as a productive editor, but be careful as what might be waved off as an innocent error by others could be interpreted poorly in your case. Please be careful.
4. And that's about all - best of luck editing, let me know if you have any questions about the unblock. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! It'll probably take me a couple days to start editing a lot since I haven't edited on here in a while, so I'm more used to simplewiki policies and writing in simple english rather than advanced english. Lallint 15:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bradley Winslow (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bradley Winslow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)